Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–12] |
Records | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. | ||||
Title | Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 296-306 | |
Keywords | Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty | ||||
Abstract | Highlights • 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments Abstract Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
||||
Address | |||||
Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
Language | Summary Language | phase 2+ | Original Title | ||
Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
ISSN | 0308521x | ISBN | Medium | ||
Area | CropM | Expedition | Conference | ||
Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5175 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Wallach, D.; Mearns, L.O.; Ruane, A.C.; Rötter, R.P.; Asseng, S. | ||||
Title | Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2016 | Publication | Climatic Change | Abbreviated Journal | Clim. Change |
Volume | 139 | Issue | 3-4 | Pages | 551-564 |
Keywords | change projections; elevated CO2; uncertainty; wheat; water; soil; simulations; yield; rice; 21st-century; Model ensembles; Crop models; Climate models; Model weighting; Super ensembles | ||||
Abstract | Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor. | ||||
Address | 2017-01-06 | ||||
Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
ISSN | 0165-0009 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | CropM, ft_MACSUR | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4933 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Grosz, B.; Dechow, R.; Gebbert, S.; Hoffmann, H.; Zhao, G.; Constantin, J.; Raynal, H.; Wallach, D.; Coucheney, E.; Lewan, E.; Eckersten, H.; Specka, X.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Nendel, C.; Kuhnert, M.; Yeluripati, J.; Haas, E.; Teixeira, E.; Bindi, M.; Trombi, G.; Moriondo, M.; Doro, L.; Roggero, P.P.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, E.; Tao, F.; Roetter, R.; Kassie, B.; Cammarano, D.; Asseng, S.; Weihermueller, L.; Siebert, S.; Gaiser, T.; Ewert, F. | ||||
Title | The implication of input data aggregation on up-scaling soil organic carbon changes | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2017 | Publication | Environmental Modelling & Software | Abbreviated Journal | Env. Model. Softw. |
Volume | 96 | Issue | Pages | 361-377 | |
Keywords | Biogeochemical model; Data aggregation; Up-scaling error; Soil organic carbon; DIFFERENT SPATIAL SCALES; NITROUS-OXIDE EMISSIONS; MODELING SYSTEM; DATA; RESOLUTION; CROP MODELS; CLIMATE; LONG; PRODUCTIVITY; CROPLANDS; DAYCENT | ||||
Abstract | In up-scaling studies, model input data aggregation is a common method to cope with deficient data availability and limit the computational effort. We analyzed model errors due to soil data aggregation for modeled SOC trends. For a region in North West Germany, gridded soil data of spatial resolutions between 1 km and 100 km has been derived by majority selection. This data was used to simulate changes in SOC for a period of 30 years by 7 biogeochemical models. Soil data aggregation strongly affected modeled SOC trends. Prediction errors of simulated SOC changes decreased with increasing spatial resolution of model output. Output data aggregation only marginally reduced differences of model outputs between models indicating that errors caused by deficient model structure are likely to persist even if requirements on the spatial resolution of model outputs are low. (C)2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | ||||
Address | 2017-09-14 | ||||
Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
ISSN | 1364-8152 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5176 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.; Ruane, A. | ||||
Title | Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2016 | Publication | Environmental Modelling & Software | Abbreviated Journal | Env. Model. Softw. |
Volume | 84 | Issue | Pages | 529-539 | |
Keywords | Crop model; Uncertainty; Prediction error; Parameter uncertainty; Input uncertainty; Model structure uncertainty | ||||
Abstract | Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation. | ||||
Address | |||||
Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
ISSN | 1364-8152 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4773 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Ruane, A.C.; Hudson, N.I.; Asseng, S.; Camarrano, D.; Ewert, F.; Martre, P.; Boote, K.J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Brisson, N.; Challinor, &rew J.; Doltra, J.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.F.; Heng, L.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kumar, S.N.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.; Olesen, J.E.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Rötter, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.O.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Travasso, M.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Wolf, J. | ||||
Title | Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2016 | Publication | Environmental Modelling & Software | Abbreviated Journal | Env. Model. Softw. |
Volume | 81 | Issue | Pages | 86-101 | |
Keywords | Crop modeling; Uncertainty; Multi-model ensemble; Wheat; AgMIP; Climate; impacts; Temperature; Precipitation; lnterannual variability; simulation-model; crop model; nitrogen dynamics; winter-wheat; large-area; systems simulation; farming systems; yield response; growth; water | ||||
Abstract | We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd. | ||||
Address | |||||
Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
ISSN | 1364-8152 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4769 | ||
Permanent link to this record |